jeudi, 25 octobre 2018

The Mass Media and the reciprocal Al-Qaeda: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, Syria, and now Myanmar

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times: http://www.moderntokyotimes.com

The mass media corporations throughout the Northern Hemisphere that incorporate the Sunni Muslim media agenda, once more appear to be quenching the al-Qaeda and Sunni Islamist terrorist chord along with so-called humanitarian organizations that incite. Of course, the pattern is abundantly obvious despite the media elites ignoring this reality. After all, since the Siege of Mecca, this natural flow can be seen in the coverage of Afghanistan (the 1980s and early 1990s), Bosnia, Libya, Syria, and now the same media and the humanitarian machine that incites is in full flow against Myanmar.

In other words, the mass media ups the ante against either the non-Muslim side in the conflict or against Muslim leaders that seek a more secular or non-Sharia Islamic path. Hence, the mass media and various Sunni Islamist terrorist groups espouse overt generalizations jointly in order to galvanize the “Takfiri sword.”

Reuters reported last year, “In a video message released by al Qaeda’s al-Malahem media foundation, Khaled Batarfi called on Muslims in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia to support their Rohingya Muslim brethren against the enemies of Allah.”

The result of the usual theme turned Afghanistan into Year Takfiri Zero after ousting President Najibullah. Since the start of the demise of Afghanistan the same one-sided media hatchet job then manipulated events in Bosnia to galvanize the “Muslim victim card,” while Islamists – including international jihadists – were butchering and beheading on the ground based on a mainly silent mass media. Of course, the same scenario of good versus evil would then be ushered against Libya and Syria – in recent times the same process is being used against Myanmar. This mass propaganda that is propagated in Western media circles – and similarly being ushered by Gulf media outlets – is the boost that Sunni Islamists need in order to declare another “fake jihad.” The upshot is a huge boost for international Sunni Islamist terrorists, a future failed or weakened nation-state, and further persecution against religious minorities – be they Alawites, Christians, the Shia, Shabaks, Yazidis, or other faith groups.

Therefore, the announcement that al-Qaeda seeks a Sunni Islamist “fake jihad” against Myanmar on the back of the mass media, is yet another continuation of a process that is monotonous by nature. In other words, the same collaborating forces are now seeking a new conflict in Myanmar that will encourage more terrorism and embolden sectarianism on all sides. Hence, humanitarian groups are equally inciting against one side while glossing over massacres in the other direction and failing to link events in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Southern Thailand.

Khaled Batarfi, a leading figure in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), called on international Sunni Islamists to declare war against the government of Myanmar. He said, “So spare no effort in waging jihad against them and repulsing their attacks, and beware of letting down our brothers in Burma [Myanmar].”

Of course, it is fine for AQAP and other Sunni Islamist terrorist groups to butcher and slaughter Shia Muslims and other non-Muslim groups. After all, Shia Muslims are deemed to be “apostates” in the eyes of Sunni Takfiris. Hence, AQAP and Saudi Arabia led Sunni alliance in Yemen, happens to be turning this country into a living nightmare. However, this reality isn’t seen by AQAP and other Sunni Muslim voices emanating from nations including Turkey (a nation that also kills the mainly Sunni Kurds and is involved in supporting sectarianism against the Syria government) because it doesn’t suit the agenda. Like usual, while Yemen is going to hell the usual Western powers are selling more military arms to allies throughout the Gulf. Therefore, the only thing that unites “the fake unifying Sunni Muslim voice” is a sense of injustice providing Muslims are perceived to be on the losing side when fighting non-Muslims or the Shia.

Shia Iran is also caught up in the rhetoric but where were the mass Sunni Muslim demonstrations against ISIS (Islamic State – IS) in Iraq, when ISIS butchered the Shia in vast numbers in single based massacres in several parts of the nation? Likewise, did nations like Malaysia (Shia Islam is illegal) and Turkey (Alevi persecuted and the mainly Sunni Kurds killed by the state apparatus) lambast ISIS to the same anti-Myanmar degree when Sunni Takfiris began to cleanse Christians in Iraq, enslave Yazidis, and kill the Shia? Despite this, Iran also plays the “Muslim victim card” despite the fact that it is Sunni Islamists on the whole that is butchering the Shia in several nations.

Turning to Libya, Colonel Gaddafi was no saint but the mass media glorified a “fake-revolution” that was based on Gulf and NATO intrigues. Like usual, the media provided the propaganda angle and then Sunni Islamists entered the fray on the ground. Hence, the usual forces promised democracy in Libya but the end result was a failed state, the lynching of black Africans by various Arab militias, ISIS beheading Christians, rampant poverty, countless militias, the destruction of Sufi shrines by Takfiris, and becoming a conduit for exporting Sunni Islamist sectarians to Syria. In 2018, Libya is now a paradise for human smuggling and raping black African female migrants in transit and other ill deeds based on being a failed state.

This reality, just like supporting Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1980s and early 1990s, is a million miles from the promises ushered by senior international politicians and the mass media. In other words, the propaganda used to oust both leaders led to failed states, narcotics, women put further into the shadows, chaos, and boosting forces that support killing apostates, stoning women to death for adultery, butchering the Shia (Afghanistan), and other barbaric realities.

The next nation to follow the usually combined forces of the mass media, Sunni Islamist sectarianism, Gulf and NATO intrigues, and the incitement by humanitarians was Syria. After all, from day one Sunni Takfiris supported the policy of “Alawites to the grave, Christians to Beirut.” Yet, the mass media portrayed a one-sided view of events that swelled the numbers of Sunni Islamist terrorists entering Syria from nations including NATO Turkey.

Myanmar now faces the same combined forces based on “good versus evil.” Given this reality, Al-Qaeda is seeking to further increase the bloodshed and spill blood in the name of sectarianism and Sunni Islamic jihad in this nation – while Bengali Muslims on the ground in Rakhine seek another land grab to replicate the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Hence, like usual, this is following on from the one-sided mass media reports of events in Myanmar. Hence, while small minorities including the mainly Buddhist Mro people face being cleansed by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) – who are following the usual Islamist traits of killing and persecuting small minorities – the mass media is negating this reality to any major extent. Similarly, ARSA terrorists in Myanmar are killing Bengali Hindus. Meanwhile, some reports state Hindu women are being forced to convert to Islam – a tactic used against Yazidis in Iraq and against other minorities in countless conflicts throughout history. Despite this, the mantra of the mass media is creating the knock-on-effect of encouraging international jihadists to flock to the arena of conflict based on “good versus evil.”

AFP (France 24) reports, “San Tun said many of his Mro people — who number between 20,000 and 40,000 — had to leave everything behind as they sought sanctuary in government-held areas, fearful Rohingya militants would target them again.”

Modern Tokyo Times says, “In other words, just like Yazidis have been enslaved and raped by Sunni Islamists in Iraq, and the same Sunni Islamist Takfiri virus stating “Alawites to the grave, Christians to Beirut” in Syria, then the small mainly Buddhist tribe of the Mro equally face Islamist cleansing. Yet, if mass media corporations seek to be believed, then surely the Islamists of ARSA would be solely focused on the armed forces of Myanmar in order to protect Bengali Muslims. Instead, just like in Iraq where Sunni Islamists target Yazidis and other minorities who have no power – nor have persecuted Sunni Muslims – it seems that ARSA is following the Islamist mantra of cleansing, killing, and persecuting…Therefore, ARSA is threatening the small mainly Buddhist tribe of the Mro who number between 20,000 and 40,000 people. At the same time, Bengali Hindus caught in the path of ARSA also face the Islamist sword.”

Overall, with al-Qaeda seeking a new Sunni Islamic jihad against Myanmar, then once more the mass media is laying the foundation by spreading one-sided versions to the point of inciting hatred. Similarly, Sunni Islamists throughout Europe will utilize the non-Muslim angle in order to recruit more terrorists to several conflicts. Therefore, Myanmar faces increasingly dark times and regionally divided loyalties will boost sectarianism on several fronts.

It is worth noting that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims in nations including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen – rather than in Myanmar. Equally, the security forces in this nation only responded after Islamists and Bengali Muslims turned against the indigenous of Rakhine. Of course, this will not stop the Islamist agenda of spreading more violence to Myanmar – while increasing pressure regionally in nations including Bangladesh and Indonesia. This role is continuously played out based on the one-sided media mantra and the role of humanitarian agencies that incite.

In Iraq and Syria it soon became apparent that Sunni Islamist forces, be it al-Qaeda, ISIS, or a plethora of other Takfiri Islamist groups, hated all and sundry. Hence, it wasn’t just a battle against the central government of Syria – or international troops on the ground in relation to Iraq. Instead, it was a literal survival for ethnic and religious minorities who were caught up in the Sunni Islamist storm of wanton violence and massacres. Similarly, for small indigenous ethnic groups in Rakhine (Myanmar) and for Bengali Hindus, the religious angle soon became apparent. Therefore, the sword of ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) Islamist terrorism would target non-Muslim minorities despite these groups holding no power over Bengali Muslims in Rakhine.

Sadly, if you view the brutal massacres against the Yazidis in Iraq by ISIS and note the same aim of ARSA against the mainly Buddhist tribe of the Mro in Rakhine and other small minorities including Bengali Hindus, then a pattern emerges. This pattern is that the Sunni Islamist sword seeks to crush the indigenous and all smaller ethnic and religious groups in Iraq and Rakhine respectively – just like Syrian Christians were attacked and other smaller religious groups in Syria. In other words, the Sunni Islamist sword is fighting against central forces and smaller ethnic and religious groups at the same time in order to cleanse entirely.

AFP (France 24) last year reported about the Mro fleeing ARSA terrorism, “San Tun said many of his Mro people — who number between 20,000 and 40,000 — had to leave everything behind as they sought sanctuary in government-held areas…”

State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar stipulates, “Those who have had to flee their homes are many. Not just Muslims and [Buddhist] Rakhines but also small minority groups such as Daing-net, Mro, Thet, Mramagyi and Hindus, of whose presence most of the world is totally unaware.”

U Tun Aung Thein, a local politician from the township of Buthidaung, is especially vociferous when it comes to protecting various indigenous groups and preserving the binding force of Buddhism. This politician stipulated strongly, “The minority Arakanese people and other tribes have fled their homes because of overwhelming fears. The whole area has fallen to the hands of non-Myanmar citizens.”

The same politician, who is deeply worried about international pressure, stated earnestly, “Under such circumstances, resettlement of non-citizens in southern Maungdaw can harm sovereignty in the future. Locals have also released statements against resettlement of Bengalis in southern Maungdaw, and we must heed their desires.”

Ironically, and of course, negated by the mass media, is that the armed forces of Myanmar were welcomed by the indigenous Buddhists, small ethnic Tribal Groups, Bengali Hindus, and others. After all, they all face ARSA terrorism, the Bengali Muslim land grab (just like Assam and the Chittagong Hill Tracts), and Islamist religious hatred of non-Muslims. Therefore, unlike the Yazidis who were abandoned when the ISIS Sunni Islamist sword came to butcher them and enslave Yazidi women because of the failure of central forces in Iraq – the various minorities of Rakhine were protected by the armed forces of Myanmar when ARSA tried the same tactic.

Amnesty International, an organization that is anti-Myanmar in general, even highlighted massacres committed by ARSA Islamists against Bengali Hindus. In other words, even fellow Bengalis were butchered because they happened to follow Hinduism. Of course, this isn’t a shock to Bengali Hindus given the historical reality of being butchered by Islamist forces throughout history – irrespective if killed by non-Bengali Muslims or killed by Bengali Muslims.

The BBC reports about one massacre by ARSA in accordance with the report by Amnesty International. This media source reports“In this brutal and senseless act, members of ARSA captured scores of Hindu women, men and children and terrorized them before slaughtering them outside their own villages.”

In this massacre by ARSA in the village of Ah Nauk Kha Maung Seik, it is known that Islamist terrorists even killed 23 Hindu children, of which 13 of them were under the age of eight. Hence, just like countless Sunni Islamist massacres against the Yazidis in Iraq, the sword of Islamism cares little about butchering non-Muslims despite these groups having no power within Iraq and Rakhine respectively. Of course, similar machete attacks and other brutal methods by Islamists in butchering Mro Buddhists and other non-Muslims in Rakhine are continuing in 2018.

Therefore, the armed forces of Myanmar entered Rakhine to protect various ethnic and religious groups. If the army hadn’t entered Rakhine, then a further bloodbath against various non-Muslim groups would have ensued on a much larger scale. Hence, the government of Myanmar prevented the fate that befell the Yazidis in Iraq. After all, the Yazidis were abandoned by central forces and the international coalition that just bombed from the sky.

Veena Sikri, former ambassador of India to Bangladesh, told India.com, “the terror perpetrated by ARSA and Haraka al-Yaqeen should not be ignored by New Delhi and other neighboring nations.”

Reuters reports that Islamist terrorists also killed Hindus for not converting to the Islamic faith. This agency says one witness, Bina Bala, stipulates, “We watched as they tied each person, hands behind their back and also legs … They cut all their throats and pushed them into a hole.” Hindu women who survived this attack did so because they converted to Islam.

ARSA and ISIS

Of course, the objectives of ARSA and ISIS are different even if their hatred of non-Muslims is the same. For example, while both equally use the methodology of killing and intimidation, the ARSA angle is interwoven within the Bengali Muslim land grab that blights various non-Muslim indigenous groups in Assam (India), the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Bangladesh), and Rakhine in Myanmar. However, ISIS is focused on an international Sunni Islamist movement that will devour nation states – hence, the central governments of Iraq and Syria were being challenged by a movement that solely wanted a Sunni Islamist Takfiri state that would supplant the nation-state.

ARSA, like the Sunni Islamist Taliban in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, seems more focused on the ethnic angle and behaving like “its string is being held by an external national or international entity.” In other words, the role of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – and others – should be studied carefully. Likewise, the media over-distortion in the West and Islamic world is like the anti-Serbian Orthodox Christian bias in Kosovo (Serbia) – that was probably more aimed at appeasing Gulf petrodollars and reducing the leverage of the Russian Federation in the Balkans. Therefore, China and the Russian Federation in recent times are becoming increasingly alarmed by the same tactics being used against nations. For example, Libya and Syria were attacked based on mass media distortions and NATO and Gulf nations utilizing various Sunni Islamist terrorist groups on the ground.

India and Myanmar

The nations of India and Myanmar should forge closer border policies in order to stem the tide of mass Bengali Muslim migration while pressurizing Bangladesh to act. Equally, just like China and the Russian Federation are preventing the diktats of the OIC, it is incumbent that India supports Myanmar over events in Rakhine. After all, India knows full well about Islamization by stealth, Sunni Islamist terrorism, and the Bengali Muslim land grab against the indigenous of Assam – and other areas of India. Therefore, India should be more outspoken in supporting Myanmar, especially given the legacy of countless Islamic invasions and the role of the British in cutting up this nation once the tyranny of both forces had finally come to an end.

Conclusion

The government of Myanmar faces untold pressure to accept Bengali Muslims back into Rakhine in Myanmar because of the utter bias of certain Western and Islamic nations. Yet, if Myanmar is pressured then Buddhists, Hindus, and Tribal people have much to fear in Rakhine. This is based on Islamic terrorism and institutional religious hatred emanating from Sharia Islamic law that seeks to crush non-Muslims in this part of Myanmar. Similarly, when the demographic time bomb reaches majority status in Rakhine, then will the same pressures emerge in another part of Myanmar based on Islamization? Indeed, Buddhists and other minorities in Rakhine only need to look at events in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and parts of Southern Thailand to see how Buddhists have been treated and the demographic reality that entails. In the case of Southern Thailand, then this scenario is happening despite the armed forces of this nation protecting Buddhists and Buddhist monasteries from Islamist forces.

Overall, Myanmar needs to forge closer ties with important geopolitical powers including China, India, and the Russian Federation. At the same time, this nation should foster closer economic ties with China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and other nations based on positive relations. Likewise, Myanmar should strengthen ties with all regional nations throughout the Mekong Delta and other parts of Asia that encompasses nations including Sri Lanka. Equally important, Myanmar needs to focus on a media campaign and social media areas that highlight the role of the armed forces of Myanmar in protecting various ethnic and religious groups in Rakhine – for example, protecting the mainly Buddhist Mro to helping Bengali Hindus fleeing ARSA terrorism during the height of the crisis last year. After all, Myanmar faces an endless media and social media war – the role of Gulf petrodollars in manipulating events on the ground, in order to cover-up the deeds of major Western and Sunni Muslim powers that are butchering in Yemen – and the negative intrigues of Western powers that have eyes on dominating any nation that is independent.

Allegedly, Jamal Khashoggi in his last column focused extensively on the need for press freedom in the Arabic speaking world. This is being lauded in Western media circles and in publications that have Muslim Brotherhood leanings. Yet, just basic critical thinking would render this to be overly simplistic and blatantly political. After all, if Khashoggi was so principled and cared about press freedom, then why did he enjoy his visits to Turkey and meet with President Erdogan and leading politicians from the same political party?

This question is important because in modern-day Turkey you have countless numbers of political prisoners languishing in jail. It matters not if you are Kurdish, a Gulenist, or leftist because all face the brutal reality of Erdogan’s Turkey. Equally important, Turkey is a nightmare for journalists who dare question the excesses of Erdogan and his intrigues aimed at curtailing political freedom.

The Council on Foreign Relations, reports, “…Turkey, the leading jailer of journalists in the world, has kidnapped followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen in Asia and Europe—and just before the Khashoggi disappearance, one of Erdogan’s closest advisors warned that Turkey’s dragnet would extend across the globe.”

Last year, The Guardian, stipulated, “Scores of imprisoned Turkish journalists face a Kafkaesque nightmare of legal limbo, farcical charge sheets, maltreatment and even solitary confinement in the country that locks up more reporters than any other in the world.”

An article in the Washington Post uttered, “Turkey once had a robust, independent press, but Mr. Erdogan has waged a multifront campaign: closing media outlets, forcing others into new ownership, and using friendly judges and prosecutors. In the latest cases, some reporters and editors were convicted for what they said on Twitter.”

Hence, the narrative of Turkey claiming that they have evidence of the murder of Khashoggi by a Saudi hit squad must be viewed in light of the nation expressing this. Yes, a nation that imprisons people at the drop of hat, arrests journalists, is involved in terrorist and sectarian intrigues in Northern Syria, and other ill deeds. Therefore, with each passing day suspicion remains that the Muslim Brotherhood universal political wing, Qatar, Turkey, and other forces opposed to internal changes inside Saudi Arabia, are collectively seeking to “milk the situation” by spreading anti-Saudi Arabia propaganda.

Overall, with Turkey in recent times taking on Saudi Arabia by supporting Qatar and Iran – and being opposed to the leadership of Egypt – and other factors related to the Muslim Brotherhood; then why would Saudi Arabia openly butcher an individual in a nation that supports the other camp? Also, since Turkey claims to have evidence, then how come the security services of Saudi Arabia were not aware that Turkey was spying on them? Therefore, why would Saudi Arabia openly support such a terrible own goal if ordered by the inner elites of this nation?

Indicating a botched attempt of taking Khashoggi for rendition to Saudi Arabia and a cover-up. However, the gruesome comments emanating from Turkey seem out of line with a chain of events that was most likely unintended – even if resulting in death.

My intention today is to look at the unfolding crisis from a more “modern” point of view and try to evaluate only what the political and social consequences of the latest developments might be in the short and mid term. I will begin by a short summary.

The current context: a summary

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken the official decision to:

Declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to unilaterally grant autocephaly (full independence) to any other Church with no consultations with any the other Orthodox Churches.

Cancel the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios IV in 1686 transferring the Kiev Metropolia (religious jurisdiction overseen by a Metropolite) to the Moscow Patriarchate (a decision which no Patriarch of Constantinople contested for three centuries!)

Lift the anathema pronounced against the “Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko by the Moscow Patriarchate (in spite of the fact that the only authority which can lift an anathema is the one which pronounced it in the first place)

Recognize as legitimate the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate” which it previously had declared as illegitimate and schismatic.

Most people naturally focus on this last element, but this might be a mistake, because while illegally granting autocephaly to a mix of nationalist pseudo-Churches is most definitely a bad decision, to act like some kind of “Orthodox Pope” and claim rights which only belong to the entire Church is truly a historical mistake. Not only that, but this mistake now forces every Orthodox Christian to either accept this as a fait accompli and submit to the megalomania of the wannabe Ortho-Pope of the Phanar, or to reject such unilateral and totally illegal action or to enter into open opposition. And this is not the first time such a situation has happened in the history of the Church. I will use an historical parallel to make this point.

The historical context:

The Church of Rome and the rest of the Christian world were already on a collision course for several centuries before the famous date of 1054 when Rome broke away from the Christian world. Whereas for centuries Rome had been the most steadfast bastion of resistance against innovations and heresies, the influence of the Franks in the Church of Rome eventually resulted (after numerous zig-zags on this topic) in a truly disastrous decision to add a single world (filioque - “and the son” in Latin) to the Symbol of Faith (the Credo in Latin). What made that decision even worse was the fact that the Pope of Rome also declared that he had the right to impose that addition upon all the other Christian Churches, with no conciliar discussion or approval. It is often said that the issue of the filioque is “obscure” and largely irrelevant, but that is just a reflection of the theological illiteracy of those making such statements as, in reality, the addition of the filioque completely overthrows the most crucial and important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of Christianity. But what *is* true is that the attempt to unilaterally impose this heresy on the rest of the Christian world was at least as offensive and, really, as sacrilegious as the filioque itself because it undermined the very nature of the Church. Indeed, the Symbol of Faith defines the Church as “catholic” (Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν”) meaning not only “universal” but also “whole” or “all-inclusive”. In ecclesiological terms this “universality” is manifested in two crucial ways:

First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no “historical see” granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; the Head of the Church is Christ Himself, and the Church is His Theadric Body filled with the Holy Spirit. Oh I know, to say that the Holy Spirit fills the Church is considered absolutely ridiculous in our 21st century post-Christian world, but check out these words from the Book of Acts: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) which clearly show that the members of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem clearly believed and proclaimed that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone still believing that will immediately see why the Church needs no “vicar of Christ” or any “earthly representative” to act in Christ’s name during His absence. In fact, Christ Himself clearly told us “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt 28:20). If a Church needs a “vicar” – then Christ and the Holy Spirit are clearly not present in that Church. QED.

Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church. These are really the basics of what could be called “traditional Christian ecclesiology 101” and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself.

I hasten to add that while the Popes were the first ones to claim for themselves an authority only given to the full Church, they were not the only ones (by the way, this is a very good working definition of the term “Papacy”: the attribution to one man of all the characteristics belonging solely to the entire Church). In the early 20th century the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Romania got together and, under the direct influence of powerful Masonic lodges, decided to adopt the Gregorian Papal Calendar (named after the 16th century Pope Gregory XIII). The year was 1923, when the entire Russian Orthodox Church was being literally crucified on the modern Golgotha of the Bolshevik regime, but that did not prevent these Churches from calling their meeting “pan Orthodox”. Neither did the fact that the Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem Church and the Holy Mountain (aka “Mount Athos”) rejected this innovation stop them. As for the Papal Calendar itself, the innovators “piously” re-branded it as “improved Julian” and other such euphemism to conceal the real intention behind this.

Finally, even the fact that this decision also triggered a wave of divisions inside their own Churches was not cause for them to reconsider or, even less so, to repent. Professor C. Troitsky was absolutely correct when he wrote that “there is no doubt that future historians of the Orthodox Church will be forced to admit that the Congress of 1923 was the saddest event of Church life in the 20th century” (for more on this tragedy see here, here and here). Here again, one man, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis) tried to “play Pope” and his actions resulted in a massive upheaval which ripped through the entire Orthodox world.

More recently, the Patriarch of Constantinople tried, once again, to convene what he would want to be an Orthodox “Ecumenical Council” under his personal authority when in 2016 (yet another) “pan Orthodox” council was convened on the island of Crete which was attended by the Churches of Alexandria , Jerusalem , Serbia , Romania , Cyprus , Greece, Poland , Albania and of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Churches of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia and the USA (OCA) refused to attend. Most observers agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate played a key role in undermining what was clearly to be a “robber” council which would have introduced major (and fully non-Orthodox) innovations. The Patriarch of Constantinople never forgave the Russians for torpedoing his planned “ecumenical” council.

Some might have noticed that a majority of local Churches did attend both the 1923 and the 2016 wannabe “pan Orthodox” councils. Such an observation might be very important in a Latin or Protestant context, but in the Orthodox context is is absolutely meaningless for the following reasons:

The theological context:

In the history of the Church there have been many “robber” councils (meaning illegitimate, false, councils) which were attended by a majority of bishops of the time, and even a majority of the Churches; in this article I mentioned the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor (which you can read in full here) as a perfect example of how one single person (not even a priest!) can defend true Christianity against what could appear at the time as the overwhelming number of bishops representing the entire Church. But, as always, these false bishops were eventually denounced and the Truth of Orthodoxy prevailed.

Likewise, at the False Union of Florence, when all the Greek delegates signed the union with the Latin heretics, and only one bishop refused to to do (Saint Mark of Ephesus), the Latin Pope declared in despair “and so we have accomplished nothing!”. He was absolutely correct – that union was rejected by the “Body” of the Church and the names of those apostates who signed it will remain in infamy forever. I could multiply the examples, but what is crucial here is to understand that majorities, large numbers or, even more so, the support of secular authorities are absolutely meaningless in Christian theology and in the history of the Church and that, with time, all the lapsed bishops who attended robber councils are always eventually denounced and the Orthodox truth always proclaimed once again. It is especially important to keep this in mind during times of persecution or of brutal interference by secular authorities because even when they *appear* to have won, their victory is always short-lived.

I would add that the Russian Orthodox Church is not just “one of the many” local Orthodox Churches. Not only is the Russian Orthodox Church by far the biggest Orthodox Church out there, but Moscow used to be the so-called “Third Rome”, something which gives the Moscow Patriarchate a lot of prestige and, therefore, influence. In secular terms of prestige and “street cred” the fact that the Russians did not participate in the 1923 and 2016 congresses is much bigger a blow to its organizers than if, say, the Romanians had boycotted it. This might not be important to God or for truly pious Christians, but I assure you that this is absolutely crucial for the wannabe “Eastern Pope” of the Phanar…

Who is really behind this latest attack on the Church?

So let’s begin by stating the obvious: for all his lofty titles (“His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch“ no less!), the Patriarch of Constantinople (well, of the Phanar, really), is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. An ambitious and vain puppet for sure, but a puppet nonetheless. To imagine that the Uber-loser Poroshenko would convince him to pick a major fight with the Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely laughable and totally ridiculous. Some point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a Turkish civil servant. While technically true, this does not suggest that Erdogan is behind this move either: right now Erdogan badly needs Russia on so many levels that he gains nothing and risks losing a lot by alienating Moscow. No, the real initiator of this entire operation is the AngloZionist Empire and, of course, the Papacy (which has always tried to create an “Orthodoxerein Ukraine” from the “The Eastern Crusade” and “Northern Crusades” of Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX to the Nazi Ukraine of Bandera – see here for details).

Why would the Empire push for such a move? Here we can find a mix of petty and larger geostrategic reasons. First, the petty ones: they range from the usual impotent knee-jerk reflex to do something, anything, to hurt Russia to pleasing of the Ukronazi emigrés in the USA and Canada. The geostrategic ones range from trying to save the highly unpopular Ukronazi regime in Kiev to breaking up the Orthodox world thereby weakening Russian soft-power and influence. This type of “logic” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox world today. Here is why:

The typical level of religious education of Orthodox Christians is probably well represented by the famous Bell Curve: some are truly completely ignorant, most know a little, and a few know a lot. As long as things were reasonably peaceful, all these Orthodox Christians could go about their daily lives and not worry too much about the big picture. This is also true of many Orthodox Churches and bishops. Most folks like beautiful rites (singing, golden cupolas, beautiful architecture and historical places) mixed in with a little good old superstition (place a candle before a business meeting or playing the lottery) – such is human nature and, alas, most Orthodox Christians are no different, even if their calling is to be “not of this world”. But now this apparently peaceful picture has been severely disrupted by the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople whose actions are in such blatant and severe violation of all the basic canons and traditions of the Church that they literally force each Orthodox Christian, especially bishops, to break their silence and take a position: am I with Moscow or with Constantinople?

Oh sure, initially many (most?) Orthodox Christians, including many bishops, will either try to look away or limit themselves to vapid expressions of “regret” mixed in with calls for “unity”. A good example of that kind of wishy washy lukewarm language can already be found here. But this kind of Pilate-like washing of hands (“ain’t my business” in modern parlance) is unsustainable, and here is why: in Orthodox ecclesiology you cannot build “broken Eucharistic triangles”. If A is not in communion with B, then C cannot be in communion with A and B at the same time. It’s really an “either or” binary choice. At least in theory (in reality, such “broken triangles” have existed, most recently between the former ROCA/ROCOR, the Serbian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, but they are unsustainable, as events of the 2000-2007 years confirmed for the ROCA/ROCOR). Still, no doubt that some (many?) will try to remain in communion with both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Constantinople Patriarchate, but this will become harder and harder with every passing month. In some specific cases, such a decision will be truly dramatic, I think of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain in particular.

On a more cynical level, I would note that the Patriarch of Constantinople has now opened a real Pandora’s box which now every separatist movement in an Orthodox country will be able to use to demand its own “autocephaly” which will threaten the unity of most Orthodox Churches out there. If all it takes to become “autocephalous” is to trigger some kind of nationalist uprising, then just imagine how many “Churches” will demand the same autocephaly as the Ukronazis are today! The fact that ethno-phyetism is a condemned heresy will clearly stop none of them. After all, if it is good enough for the “Ecumenical” Patriarch, it sure is good enough for any and all pseudo-Orthodox nationalists!

What the AngloZionist Empire has done is to force each Orthodox Christian and each Orthodox Church to chose between siding with Moscow or Constantinople. This choice will have obvious spiritual consequences, which the Empire couldn’t give a damn about, but it will also profound political and social consequences which, I believe, the Empire entirely missed.

The Moscow Patriarchate vs the Patriarchate of Constantinople – a sociological and political analysis

Let me be clear here that I am not going to compare and contrast the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (PC) from a spiritual, theological or even ecclesiological point of view here. Instead, I will compare and contrast them from a purely sociological and political point of view. The differences here are truly profound.

Moscow Patriarchate

Patriarchate of Constantinople

Actual size

Very big

Small

Financial means

Very big

Small

Dependence on the support of the Empire and its various entities

Limited

Total

Relations with the Vatican

Limited, mostly due to very strongly anti-Papist sentiments in the people

Mutual support and de-facto alliance

Majority member’s outlook

Conservative

Modernist

Majority member’s level of support

Strong

Lukewarm

Majority member’s concern with Church rules/cannons/traditions

Medium and selective

Low

Internal dissent

Practically eliminated (ROCA)

Strong (Holy Mountain, Old Calendarists)

From the above table you can immediately see that the sole comparative ‘advantage’ of the PC is that is has the full support of the AngloZionist Empire and the Vatican. On all the other measures of power, the MP vastly “out-guns” the PC.

Now, inside the Ukronazi occupied Ukraine, that support of the Empire and the Vatican (via their Uniats) does indeed give a huge advantage to the PC and its Ukronazi pseudo-Orthodox “Churches”. And while Poroshenko has promised that no violence will be used against the MP parishes in the Ukraine, we all remember that he was the one who promised to stop the war against the Donbass, so why even pay attention to what he has to say.

US diplomats and analysts might be ignorant enough to believe Poroshenko’s promises, but if that is the case then they are failing to realize that Poroshensko has very little control over the hardcore Nazi mobs like the one we saw last Sunday in Kiev. The reality is very different: Poroshenko’s relationship to the hardcore Nazis in the Ukraine is roughly similar to the one the House of Saud has with the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia: they try to both appease and control them, but they end up failing every time. The political agenda in the Ukraine is set by bona fide Nazis, just as it is set in the KSA by the various al-Qaeda types. Poroshenko and MBS are just impotent dwarfs trying to ride on the shoulders of much more powerful devils.

Sadly, and as always, the ones most at risk right now are the simple faithful who will resist any attempts by the Ukronazi death-squads to seize their churches and expel their priests. I don’t expect a civil war to ensue, not in the usual sense of the world, but I do expect a lot of atrocities similar to what took place during the 2014 Odessa massacre when the Ukronazis burned people alive (and shot those trying to escape). Once these massacres begin, it will be very, very hard for the Empire to whitewash them or blame it all on “Russian interference”. But most crucially, as the (admittedly controversial) Christian writer Tertullian noticed as far back as the 2nd century “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”. You can be sure that the massacre of innocent Christians in the Ukraine will result in a strengthening of the Orthodox awareness, not only inside the Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, especially among those who are currently “on the fence” so to speak, between the kind of conservative Orthodoxy proclaimed by the MP and the kind of lukewarm wishy washy “decaf” pseudo-Orthodoxy embodied by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. After all, it is one thing to change the Church Calendar or give hugs and kisses to Popes and quite another to bless Nazi death-squads to persecute Orthodox Christians.

To summarize I would say that by his actions, the Patriarch of Constantinople is now forcing the entire Orthodox world to make a choice between two very different kind of “Orthodoxies”. As for the Empire, it is committing a major mistake by creating a situation which will further polarize strongly, an already volatile political situation in the Ukraine.

There is, at least potentially, one more possible consequence from these developments which is almost never discussed: its impact inside the Moscow Patriarchate.

Possible impact of these developments inside the Moscow Patriarchate

Without going into details, I will just say that the Moscow Patriarchate is a very diverse entity in which rather different “currents” coexist. In Russian politics I often speak of Atlantic Integrationists and Eurasian Sovereignists. There is something vaguely similar inside the MP, but I would use different terms. One camp is what I would call the “pro-Western Ecumenists” and the other camp the “anti-Western Conservatives”. Ever since Putin came to power the pro-Western Ecumenists have been losing their influence, mostly due to the fact that the majority of the regular rank and file members of the MP are firmly behind the anti-Western Conservative movement (bishops, priests, theologians). The rabid hatred and fear of everything Russian by the West combined with the total support for anything anti-Russian (including Takfiris and Nazis) has had it’s impact here too, and very few people in Russia want the civilizational model of Conchita Wurst, John McCain or Pope Francis to influence the future of Russia. The word “ecumenism” has, like the word “democracy”, become a four letter word in Russia with a meaning roughly similar to “sellout” or “prostitution”. What is interesting is that many bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate who, in the past, were torn between the conservative pressure from their own flock and their own “ecumenical” and “democratic” inclinations (best embodied by the Patriarch of Constantinople) have now made a choice for the conservative model (beginning by Patriarch Kirill himself who, in the past, used to be quite favorable to the so-called “ecumenical dialog of love” with the Latins).

Now that the MP and the PC have broken the ties which previously united them, they are both free to pursue their natural inclinations, so to speak. The PC can become some kind of “Eastern Rite Papacy” and bask in an unhindered love fest with the Empire and the Vatican while the MP will now have almost no incentive whatsoever to pay attention to future offers of rapprochement by the Empire or the Vatican (these two always work hand in hand). For Russia, this is a very good development.

Make no mistake, what the Empire did in the Ukraine constitutes yet another profoundly evil and tragic blow against the long-suffering people of the Ukraine. In its ugliness and tragic consequences, it is quite comparable to the occupation of these lands by the Papacy via its Polish and Lithuanian agents. But God has the ability to turn even the worst horror into something which, in the end, will strengthen His Church.

Russia in general, and the Moscow Patriarchate specifically, are very much in a transition phase on many levels and we cannot overestimate the impact which the West’s hostility on all fronts, including spiritual ones, will have on the future consciousness of the Russian and Orthodox people. The 1990s were years of total confusion and ignorance, not only for Russia by the way, but the first decade of the new millennium has turned out to be a most painful, but also most needed, eye-opener for those who had naively trusted the notion that the West’s enemy was only Communism, not Russia as a civilizational model.

In their infinite ignorance and stupidity, the leaders of the Empire have always acted only in the immediate short term and they never bothered to think about the mid to long term effects of their actions. This is as true for Russia as it is for Iraq or the Balkans. When things eventually, and inevitably, go very wrong, they will be sincerely baffled and wonder how and why it all went wrong. In the end, as always, they will blame the “other guy”.

There is no doubt in my mind that the latest maneuver of the AngloZionist Empire in the Ukraine will yield some kind of feel-good and short term “victory” (“peremoga” in Ukrainian) which will be followed by a humiliating defeat (“zrada” in Ukrainian) which will have profound consequences for many decades to come and which will deeply reshape the current Orthodox world. In theory, these kinds of operations are supposed to implement the ancient principle of “divide and rule”, but in the modern world what they really do is to further unite the Russian people against the Empire and, God willing, will unite the Orthodox people against pseudo-Orthodox bishops.

Conclusion:

In this analysis I have had to describe a lot of, shall we say, “less than inspiring” realities about the Orthodox Church and I don’t want to give the impression that the Church of Christ is as clueless and impotent as all those denominations, which, over the centuries have fallen away from the Church. Yes, our times are difficult and tragic, but the Church has not lost her “salt”. So what I want to do in lieu of a personal conclusion is to quote one of the most enlightened and distinguished theologians of our time, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, who in his book “The Mind of the Orthodox Church” (which I consider one of the best books available in English about the Orthodox Church and a “must read” for anybody interested in Orthodox ecclesiology) wrote the following words:

Saint Maximos the Confessor says that, while Christians are divided into categories according to age and race, nationalities, languages, places and ways of life, studies and characteristics, and are “distinct from one another and vastly different, all being born into the Church and reborn and recreated through it in the Spirit” nevertheless “it bestows equally on all the gift of one divine form and designation, to be Christ’s and to bear His Name. And Saint Basil the Great, referring to the unity of the Church says characteristically: “The Church of Christ is one, even tough He is called upon from different places”. These passages, and especially the life of the Church, do away with every nationalistic tendency. It is not, of course, nations and homelands that are abolished, but nationalism, which is a heresy and a great danger to the Church of Christ.

Metropolitan Hierotheos is absolutely correct. Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today. During the 20th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians (having said that, this in no way implies that the kind of suicidal multiculturalism advocated by the degenerate leaders of the AngloZionist Empire today is any better!). And this is hardly a “Ukrainian” problem (the Moscow Patriarchate is also deeply infected by the deadly virus of nationalism). Nationalism and ethno-phyletism are hardly worse than such heresies as Iconoclasm or Monophysitism/Monothelitism were in the past and those were eventually defeated. Like all heresies, nationalism will never prevail against the “Church of the living God” which is the “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and while many may lapse, others never will.

In the meantime, the next couple of months will be absolutely crucial. Right now it appears to me that the majority of the Orthodox Churches will first try to remain neutral but will have to eventually side with the Moscow Patriarchate and against the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew. Ironically, the situation inside the USA will most likely be particularly chaotic as the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA have divided loyalties and are often split along conservative vs modernizing lines. The other place to keep a close eye on will be the monasteries on the Holy Mountain were I expect a major crisis and confrontation to erupt.

With the crisis in the Ukraine the heresy of nationalism has reached a new level of infamy and there will most certainly be a very strong reaction to it. The Empire clearly has no idea what kind of dynamic it has now set in motion.

What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering…

Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. ..

We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation…

(It would be) fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, commenting on NATO’s recent military exercises in Poland and the Baltics.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s cry of distress is that of a man watching a tidal wave of destruction gathering force, similar to ones that have engulfed his country twice in the 20th Century. His dread is not to be dismissed since it comes from a man who is in a position to know what the U.S. is up to. His words reflect the fears of ever more people across all of the Eurasia from France in the West to Japan in the East.

Under the euphemism of “containment,” the U.S. is relentlessly advancing its new Cold War on Russia and China. Its instrument in the West is NATO and in the East, Japan and whatever other worthies can be sharked up.

It is a Cold War that grows increasingly hotter, with proxy wars now raging in Eastern Ukraine and Syria and with confrontations in the South China Sea. There is an ever-growing likelihood that these points of tension will flare up into an all-out military conflict.

In the West, this conflict will begin in Eastern Europe and Russia, but it will not stop there. All the European NATO countries would be on the front lines. In the East, the conflict will take place in the Western Pacific in the region of China’s coast and in the peninsulas and island countries in the region, including Japan, the Philippines, and Indochina.

In each case, the US will be an ocean away, “leading from behind,” as Barack Obama would put it, or engaged in “offshore balancing” as some foreign policy “experts” might term it.

No matter the “victors,” all of the Eurasia, from France in the West to Japan in the East would be devastated. No matter the outcome, the US could escape unscathed and “win” in this sense. And all Eurasian nations would lose. It would be World War II redux.

One can get a sense of what this means in the case of economic conflict by looking at the minimal economic warfare now being waged on Russia in the form of sanctions. Those sanctions are hurting both Russia and the rest of Europe. The US is untouched.

The same is also true for military conflict. Want to know what it would look like? Look at Eastern Ukraine. All of the Eurasia could come to resemble that sorry nation in the event of a military conflict pitting the US and its allies against Russia and China. Eurasia, be forewarned!

The goal of the US foreign policy elite would clearly be for Russia and China to “lose,” but even if they “won,” they would be brought low, leaving the US as the world’s greatest economic and military power as it was in 1945.

Europe is beginning to awaken to this. We have Steinmeier’s plea above. But it is not only Germany that is worried. The French Senate wants an end to the sanctions imposed on Russia. Business people in many Western European countries, most notably in Germany and Italy, European farmers who export to Russia and tourist entrepreneurs like those in Turkey and Bulgaria also want an end to sanctions and military exercises. Parties of the Right want an end to domination by NATO and Brussels, both controlled by the US. The Brexit is just one rumbling of such discontent.

All these nations are growing increasingly aware of the fate that awaits them if overt conflict erupts with Russia. The people of Germany want none of it. Likewise, the people of Japan are stirring against the US effort to goad Japan into fighting China. All remember the devastation of WWII.

Let’s recall the casualty figures, i.e., deaths, among the principal combatants of WWII:

Soviet Union- 27,000,000 (14% of the population);

China- 17,000,000 (3.5%);

Germany- 7,000,000 (8.5%);

Japan- 2,800,000 (4%).

By comparison, for the US, safely far offshore, the number was 419,000 (0.32%)!

And for a few other countries which “got in the way” of the major adversaries:

Yugoslavia- 1,500,000 (9%)

Poland- 6,000,000 (17%)

French Indochina- 1,600,000 (6.11%)

Philippines- 527,000 (3.29%)

One wonders what the leaders of Poland or the Philippines or some elements in Vietnam are thinking when they take a belligerent attitude to Russia or China in order to please the US.

The problem with this US strategy is that it could easily spill over into a nuclear conflict as nearly happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then the US too would be reduced to radioactive rubble. The bet of the Western policy elite must be that Russia and China would not respond to a conventional war with a nuclear response.

However, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that in any war with the West, the US will feel the impact at once. The neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite must be betting that Putin can do nothing because he would not use nuclear weapons. So the destruction will be confined to Europe and Asia.

But that assumption is a dangerous one. Nuclear weapons might not be used. Russia and China might respond with a conventional weapons attack on US cities. In WWII Germany was able to wreak considerable devastation using conventional bombs on England delivered by airplanes and V2 rockets. Similarly, the US was able to do enormous damage to Germany and to Japan with conventional weapons, especially fire bombing as in Tokyo and Dresden. Today technology has advanced greatly, and US cities have nuclear power plants nearby.

What is the likely outcome of a conventional war waged against US cities? Do we wish to find out? And once it begins where is the firewall against an all-out nuclear exchange? Where are the neocons and the rest of the US foreign policy elite taking us? Certainly, the damage will begin with Eurasia, but Americans would do well to worry that great swarms of chickens might come home to roost in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. This is not the 20th Century.

For some, the scenarios above might seem unduly alarmist. They might doubt that the US elite would be capable of consciously unleashing such a vast bloodletting. For those, it is useful to recall the words of President Harry S. Truman, who said in 1941, when he was still a Senator and before the US had entered WWII:

“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . .”

John Walsh [send him mail] is a frequent contributor to CounterPunch.com, Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com and DissidentVoice.org. He is a founding member of “Come Home America.” Until recently he was Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

"Libyans are protecting the family, homes and neighborhoods from foreign invaders. A majority does support the Qaddafi leadership which is what they received with their mother’s milk, but nearly all emphasize that for them and their friends it is very much about defending their revolution and country first":http://www.voltairenet.org/Lib ​ya-s-neighborhoods-prepare-for

lundi, 21 mars 2011

Manning Up

I expected this book to be a diatribe against the often-discussed “loser” men—those who, not having any marketable skill, are still living off their parents into mid-life. Manning Up actually is about a new demographic, the SYM (single young male), its female counterpart, and what factors led to the decline in marriage and number of children in the Western world. Simply having a job is not enough to be a man in the author’s view; true adulthood means being married and having children. Most young men and women are what she calls “preadults.”

Kay S. Hymowitz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written extensively on issues of marriage, the sexes, class, and race, and she appears to be genuinely concerned about the declining rates in marriage childbirth. Her stance is slanted in favor of women, but she is sympathetic to the plight of men today. She mentions that boys are often discriminated against and ignored in favor of women. While funds pour in to increase girls’ math and science scores, boys are not given special treatment to improve their reading scores. She cites a BusinessWeek story that explains today’s young men as a “payback generation” intended to “compensate for the advantages given to males in the past.”

The Shift to the Feminine, Knowledge Economy

Scholars attribute women’s entry into the workforce largely to innovations in science and technology in the twentieth century. With no need to can food, make bread, weave, or sew, women were not “needed” at home the way they were in every generation past. They were having fewer children, too, due to birth control: In the early 1800s, white women had an average of seven children. By 1900, it was 3.56. When the birth control pill was introduced in the 1960s, state laws “kept the drug away from unmarried women.” Economist Martha Baily showed that when a state changed its law, there was a decline in the percentage of young women who gave birth by age 22, and an increase in the number of young women in the labor force and the hours they worked.

The number of working women (ages 33 to 45) went from 25 percent in 1950, to 46 percent in 1970, to about 60 percent since 1995. But in the 1950s to ’70s, women tended to work to help pay the bills, often as secretaries, waitresses, nurses, teachers, and librarians. Today’s young women set out in the world to find their “passion” not in a husband, but in a career.

The shift from secretary to major player in corporate America, Hymowitz explains, was largely due to a shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy. By the 1980s, the economy was booming as manufacturing jobs decreased and millions of positions opened in fields like public relations, health, and law. Women, too weak physically to participate much in the industrial economy, could do almost any job in the knowledge economy.

One example given is design. As technology advanced, designers transitioned from working with their hands (and making lasting work as is found in Bauhaus and Art Nouveau) to being hands-off fashion designers, who no longer needed to learn drafting, typesetting, drawing, or how to use heavy equipment. Using cheap labor overseas meant many more products, and thus a greater need for marketing and advertising. Women now make up 60 percent of design students, once a male-dominated field.

New industries sprouted up, too, as increased wealth and leisure time demanded workers at yoga centers, spas, travel companies, and more marketing and ad agencies for these specialty industries—all areas in which women participate as easily as men. Working women had new needs and money to spend, so more industries sprouted up to create feminine business suits, trendy lunch spots, meal “helpers,” stylish computer bags, $400 work pumps, $5 lattes, spa treatments and scented candles to help women unwind, houses with bathrooms the size of our grandparents’ bedrooms, a variety of products in the color pink, and right-hand rings for women who want to buy themselves a diamond. Other women entered the design arena through boutique companies: making jewelry, crafts, or custom stationary.

Nation-building and culture-building thus fell out of the workforce, replaced by sales, marketing, and fashion.

Today, men outnumber women in fields like construction (88 percent), while women make up 51 percent of management and professionals, particularly in fields like Human Resources, Public Relations, and finance. Women make up 77 percent of workers in education and health services. Women are more likely to work at the numerous new nonprofits, and make up 78 percent of psychology majors, 61 percent of humanities majors, and 60 percent of social and behavioral science doctorates. Publishing has long had high numbers of women workers, but now women have moved from what Hymowitz calls the “ladies’ magazines ghettos” to political commentary.

While women moved into the knowledge economy, men remained in behind-the-scenes fields that required more technical skill: jobs like writing code and IT. Some men flocked to jobs at ESPN, Cartoon Network, microbreweries, and video game design firms. Other men knew that even in the midst of feminism, their wives would still want the option to stay home and raise children (so long as men didn’t tell them they had to), and concentrated on high-paying jobs rather than following their bliss.

In the early nineteenth century, most men worked for themselves, as farmers, small merchants, or tradesmen. But by the end of the nineteenth century, two-thirds were working for “the man.” Some experts believe that it’s women who will soon be “running the place,” since the knowledge economy workplace “requires a more feminine style of leadership.” Employers will increasingly placate women, who are not solely concerned with the bottom line as a measure of their career success, but also want a job where they “help others,” enjoy relationships with colleagues, get recognition, have flexibility, and are in an environment of “collaboration and teamwork.” More women in the workplace means that it is more genteel and less of a man’s club: Swearing and spitting are forbidden, and men are now in a domesticated atmosphere both at home and at work. The popularity of psychoanalysis means that men and women alike are trained to listen sympathetically, be sensitive to emotions, and control their anger.

To explain the dynamics of the knowledge economy, Hymowitz references a 2002 paper by Harvard economist Brian Jacob called “Where the Boys Aren’t.” He found that girls are better at noncognitive tasks, such as keeping track of homework, working well with others, and organization, and suggests that such skills may explain the gender gap in high school grades and college admissions (women have higher GPAs and are 58 percent of college graduates, but they lag behind men in math SAT scores). These cognitive skills also are important for success in today’s feminized workplace.

Though not mentioned in Manning Up, these skills are also ones for which men have traditionally relied on women: organizing the home, keeping track of appointments, and being the family PR rep and social coordinator. Today’s women benefit in the career-world, as more jobs require good communication skills and “EQ” (emotional intelligence), while men are left with lower paying jobs and the added disadvantage of no wife at home.

SYMs: The New Demographic

In 1970, 80 percent of men aged 25–29 were married, compared to 40 percent in 2007. In 1970, 85 percent of men aged 30–34 were married, compared to 60 percent in 2007.

This new single-young-male demographic used to be called “elusive,” since it was a difficult advertising target. Then Maxim arrived in America in 1997, and seemed to have the answers to what SYMs wanted. Its readership reached 2.5 million in 2009, more than the combined circulation of GQ, Men’s Journal, and Esquire. Hymowitz says other magazines, like Playboy and Esquire, tried to project the “image of an intelligent, cultured, and au courant sort of man.” Even though Playboy promoted the image of the eternal bachelor, he was at least an intelligent and sophisticated bachelor. (Hugh Hefner wrote that his readers enjoyed “inviting a female acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.”) Maxim, however, catered to the man who didn’t want to grow up.

Hymowitz doesn’t buy into the idea that the masses of men are moved by the media (or an inner party seeking to destroy them, let alone any subversive forces dominant in the Kali Yuga). She instead posits that products like Maxim were developed for an existing market.

Regardless of the reason, a number of TV shows were created with the SYM in mind, starting with TheSimpsons. Comedy Central brought out South Park and The Man Show, while the Cartoon Network promoted cartoons for grown men. More films featured SYM stars like Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, and Jack Black, and movies like 2003’s Old School (30-somethings who start a fraternity) were popular. American men ages 18–34 are now the biggest users of video games, with 48.2 percent owning a console and playing an average of 2 hours and 43 minutes per day. That doesn’t include online games like World of Warcraft.

Hymowitz recounts the numerous silly Adam Sandler movies, in which he plays a stereotypical young adult, male loser. Meanwhile, the media’s counter-image for women is the well-heeled, single young female:

If she is ambitious, he is a slacker. If she is hyper-organized and self-directed, he tends toward passivity and vagueness. If she is preternaturally mature, he is happily not. Their opposition is stylistic as well: she drinks sophisticated cocktails in mirrored bars, he burps up beer on ratty sofas. She spends her hard-earned money on mani-pedi outings, his goes toward Worldof Warcraft and gadgets.

It’s in this chapter that Hymowitz’s double-standard for men and women is most apparent, and annoying. She seems to think that when single women spend money for clothes and pedicures, it’s women’s empowerment, but single men who spend money on guy-flicks and video games are childish. Both cases seem to me examples of adults who, instead of having children, make themselves into the child: men by continuing all the games and comic books of their youth, and women by playing Barbie doll with themselves.

So if simply cutting the financial apron strings doesn’t make one a man, what does? Hymowitz answers by looking to masculine virtues throughout all cultures: “strength, courage, resolve, and sexual potency,” but that one line is about the extent of the analysis. She is careful to distinguish between having sex (which single men do a lot these days) and “manning up” by being married and becoming the head of a family.

But even when men do settle down, the roles they play as fathers have changed. Rather than being a strong father figure, today’s father often relates to his children by “accentuating his own immaturity,” according to Gary Cross, author of Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. Whether they want to or not, middle-class men are often “expected to bring home a spirit of playfulness that would have scandalized their own patriarchal fathers.” The middle-class home has became more child-centric, even with fewer children in it, and both sexes are expected to project “warmth, nurturing, and gentleness.”

With high divorce rates, many young men today were raised in matriarchal family environments, which may be one contributing factor to the “unmanliness” of some of today’s men. Instead of having their own families, some men instead play the role of the “fun uncle,” like men in matriarchal, non-white societies.

A Different Dating World

After college, all of these single young people embark on a journey more confusing than if they started a family: modern dating, now with websites that describe the etiquette for one-night stands (it’s “leave quickly”).

Men and women are both confused by the new rituals, and the lack thereof. A man who inadvertently insults a girl by not opening her car door may have been chastised by his last girlfriend for doing just that. Women sometimes “pick up” guys (whether at bars, or actually driving to pick them up for dates), and there is ambiguity about who pays for dates when SYFs outearn SYMs in the majority of large cities. Men experience the nice-guy conundrum when they see girls dating jerks. Meanwhile, women practice a Zen-like nonattachment when dating, since bringing up marriage before a year of sex seems to turn men off.

Hymowitz recounts a number of events from the childhood of young women that play into their behavior as adults: Today’s SYFs were often told by their mothers that they shouldn’t need a man to be happy. They were likely raised in the 1990s, in the midst of a tween-based advertising frenzy that marketed make-up, thong underwear, and high-heeled clogs to preteens, while at the same time trying to “save the self-esteem” of young girls. Popular TV shows for girls were based on the female warrior type: The Powerpuff Girls, Xena: Warrior Princess, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These women try to convince themselves for years that they shouldn’t “need” a child or husband, then end up debating whether to become a “choice mother” (the new term for a woman who uses sperm bank).

* * *

Manning Up might be a good “beach book” for women readers of Counter-Currents, but I have trouble imagining men enjoying it, though they would find some insights into the mind of the typical woman. I found it interesting for its wealth of statistics about marriage rates and ages, men and women in the workplace and universities, and summaries of various causes that contributed to the (mostly white) single and childless young men and women today.

There have been numerous debates on Counter-Currents and other websites about what exactly has caused the decline in marriage and childbirth. Manning Up does a good job of touching on some of the contributing forces, but never addresses any of the larger forces.

The good news from Manning Up is that the majority of young men and women still want to get married and have children. In addition, while women in their early 20s are “hot commodities,” by the time they reach 30, they are beginning to get desperate and may “settle for Mr. Good Enough” as the subtitle of the book Marry Him advises. More good news lies in the fact that young people today are scrambling for any advice whatsoever about how to successfully date and marry, revealing a large market for New Righters and Traditionalists to step into to help young people successfully navigate through the increasingly unsatisfying modern world.